Re: Godel's Theorem under Fuzzy Logic?

Gareth Baker (g.baker@dl.ac.uk)
Sun, 5 Apr 1998 23:13:58 +0200 (MET DST)

>From What I remember of the book, Yes his argument hinges on a reductionist
view of an algorithmic machine. VERY simply put he says that any two
computing machines attempting to mimic the human brain will behave in an
identical manner - i.e. no personality, individuality etc.

To my mind he is neglecting the possibility of the system being non-linear
with the attendent possibility the emergence of complexity with its
attendent "sensitivity to initial conditions". This route could give the
required differences for the emergence of personality etc.

Regards
Gareth Baker
CCLRC, Daresbury Laboratory, UK
G.J.Baker@dl.ac.uk

Christopher Reid Palmer wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 greenrd@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> This is a crucial question, IMO, with regard to Artificial Intelligence,
>> because as I understand it, Roger Penrose's whole argument in his book
>> "Shadows of the Mind" that convincingly attempts to show that AI is
>> in principle unachievable on any algorithmic computer, assumes that the
>> posited machine intelligence thinks in terms of either-or (Aristotlean)
logic
>> rather than fuzzy logic. Surely fuzzy logic would invalidate Godel's
Theorem
>> and hence his whole argument? - therefore AI might in fact be possible
after
>> all.
>
>As I understand it (not very well at all), Penrose's argument does not
>hinge on whether or not our minds compute binarily or fuzzily, but rather
>if they are algorithmic or not.
>
>Can anyone clarify for us, please?
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>Christopher Reid Palmer : reid@pconline.com : innerfire on IRC (EFNet)
>
>Accept loss forever : Jack Kerouac
>